FOX New York 8th March 2010

What is the most powerful sound in the world? In this recent interview with Martin Lindstrom FOX Business explores the latest land-grab in Advertising - the fight to brand and own generic sounds? Is it possible to own the sound of a sizzling stake or the sound of a ATM machine? You'll be surprised to learn the answer and what it means for brands in the future.

Monday March 1, 2010

Now Hear This

By Jeffrey Kluger

If you're like most people, you're way too smart for advertising. You flip right past newspaper ads, never click on ads online and leave the room during TV commercials.

That, at least, is what we tell ourselves. But what we tell ourselves is hooey. Advertising works, which is why, even in hard economic times, Madison Avenue is a $34 billion--a--year business. And if Martin Lindstrom--author of the best seller Buyology and a marketing consultant for FORTUNE 500 companies, including PepsiCo and Disney--is correct, trying to tune this stuff out is about to get a whole lot harder.

Lindstrom is a practitioner of neuromarketing research, in which consumers are exposed to ads while hooked up to machines that monitor brain activity, pupil dilation, sweat responses and flickers in facial muscles, all of which are markers of emotion. According to his studies, 83% of all forms of advertising principally engage only one of our senses: sight. Hearing, however, can be just as powerful, though advertisers have taken only limited advantage of it. Historically, ads have relied on jingles and slogans to catch our ear, largely ignoring everyday sounds--a steak sizzling, a baby laughing and other noises our bodies can't help paying attention to. Weave this stuff into an ad campaign, and we may be powerless to resist it.

To figure out what most appeals to our ear, Lindstrom wired up his volunteers, then played them recordings of dozens of familiar sounds, from McDonald's ubiquitous "I'm Lovin' It" jingle to birds chirping and cigarettes being lit. The sound that blew the doors off all the rest--both in terms of interest and positive feelings--was a baby giggling. The other high-ranking sounds were less primal but still powerful. The hum of a vibrating cell phone was Lindstrom's second-place finisher. Others that followed were an ATM dispensing cash, a steak sizzling on a grill and a soda being popped and poured.

In all of these cases, it didn't take a Mad Man to invent the sounds, infuse them with meaning and then play them over and over until the subjects internalized them. Rather, the sounds already had meaning and thus triggered a cascade of reactions: hunger, thirst, happy anticipation.

"Cultural messages that get into your nervous system are very common and make you behave certain ways," says neuroscientist Read Montague of Baylor College of Medicine. Advertisers who fail to understand that pay a price. Lindstrom admits to being mystified by TV ads that give viewers close-up food-porn shots of meat on a grill but accompany that with generic jangly guitar music. One of his earlier brain studies showed that numerous regions, including the insula and orbital frontal cortex, jump into action when such discordance occurs, trying to make sense of it.

TV advertisers aren't the only ones who may start putting sound to greater use. Retailers are also catching on. The 0101 department store in Japan, for example, has been designed as a series of soundscapes, playing different sound effects such as children at play, birdsongs and lapping water in the sportswear, fragrance and formal-wear sections. Lindstrom is consulting with clients about employing a similar strategy in European supermarkets, piping the sound of percolating coffee or fizzing soda into the beverage department or that of a baby cooing into the baby-food aisle.

None of this means that advertisers just have to turn the audio dials and consumers will come running. Indeed, sometimes they flee. In the early years of mainstream cell-phone use, the Nokia ringtone was recognized by 42% of people in the U.K.--and soon became widely loathed. That, Lindstrom says, was partly because so few users practiced cell-phone etiquette and the blasted things kept going off in movie theaters. The Microsoft start-up sound has taken on similarly negative associations, because people so often hear it when they're rebooting after their computer has crashed. In these cases, manufacturers themselves must reboot by changing the offending sound slightly or replacing it entirely.

If history is any indication, marketers will keep getting more manipulative, and the storm of commercial noise will become more focused. Even then, there may be hope: Lindstrom's testing shows that people respond to a sound better when it's subtler. If nothing else, smart marketers may at least keep the volume low.

Neural Advertising

What new ad trickery awaits? Find out at time.com/addictive_sounds

Look at Me Now! Personal Branding on TODAY Show (Part 1)

New York City. In a world growing increasingly more obsessed by celebrities, we tend to overlook one important fact: as individuals, celebrities have pretty much mastered the art of turning themselves into powerful, eye-catching and memorable personal brands. Think Madonna, Paris Hilton, Brad Pitt – even Barack Obama. What can we learn from them? In Part 1 of this riveting TODAY Show segment, Lindstrom concludes that by mimicking some of the fundamental rules employed by celebrities, we have the power as individuals to develop ourselves into a influential personal brand. To find out what these rules are, and other essential tips on personal branding, play this video.

Look at Me Now! Personal Branding on TODAY Show (Part 2)

New York City. Part 2 of the TODAY Show interview on Personal Branding with Martin Lindstrom takes a turn for the decidedly interesting as he partakes in a New York City street experiment to prove 2 points: Firstly, it is possible to build a viable personal brand in only 2 hours. Secondly, just exuding ‘star quality’ can get us noticed in a crowd. The question is, why, when achieving stand-out status, are people (suddenly) so willing to engage with you? Lindstrom goes deep into the mystique of brand auras, probing the how’s and why’s required for brand fame – instant and long-lasting – and how we can apply these to our own lives, particularly in times of economic stress.

By Bruce Horovitz, USA TODAY

Call it the battle of the virtual burger babes.

In one corner, there's Kim Kardashian, the sexy cable star, eager to chat via webcam with Carl's Jr. customers on "The Ultimate Salad Lunch Date" at www.facebook.com/carlsjr.

In the other corner, there's Burger King's "Shower Babe," an anonymous 20-year-old from South London. Folks can watch and hear her online while she showers in a bikini and sings. Viewers are asked to vote for what song she'll sing — and what bikini she'll wear — the next day.

One "seriously lucky" person in the U.K. who visits the website, www.singingintheshower.co.uk, will win a breakfast date with Shower Babe.

This may be the virtual future of fast-food advertising. Never mind that BK is pitching breakfast items and Carl's is pitching salads with these promos. Chains such as BK and Carl's, which squarely target teens and twentysomethings, find that the triple combo of hot babes, fast food and webcams work well to draw hard-to-reach teen guy prime customers to their sites and, ultimately, into stores.

But critics abound.

"It's as if we're back in the 1950s the way pop culture portrays women, but with New Age technology," says Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women.

Martin Lindstrom, a marketing consultant, questions whether sex in ads really sells. While viewers are quick to recall sexual imagery, they mostly forget what brand is behind the ad, he says. "What does sex really have to do with burgers?"

That's not the point, says Andy Puzder, CEO of Carl's Jr. "You can say 1,000 times that you have a great burger and no one will listen to you, but if you put a beautiful woman in the ad, they will."

Consumers who buy new Carl's salads between Dec. 30 and Jan. 12 will be given a special code granting access to ask Kardashian questions during the Jan. 13 virtual lunch date. No code is required, however, to watch the event via streaming video.

The BK site advises fans to "watch our shower babe shake her bits to the hits at 9:30 a.m. every morning."

The campaign, which began Dec. 8, ends on Thursday. The site has had 70,000 unique visitors. "While we know (it) won't appeal to every consumer," BK spokeswoman Michelle Miguelez says, "we do know that it does resonate with our key male superfans in the U.K."

A clothing and accessories retailer is drawing traffic -- and controversy -- with two women lounging around in skimpy clothes in a window on Fifth Avenue.

By Tina Susman

December 4, 2009

Reporting from New York

It's what all young women do in their spare time: lounge about in frilly underwear, fiddle with their rhinestone bellybutton rings and prance on the sofa, oblivious to passers-by peeping through uncovered windows.

Well, not quite, but the provocatively clad women going about their business on Fifth Avenue aren't typical. They are an advertisement for the clothing and accessories retailer XOXO, whose live window display featuring two models -- friends from Venice, Calif. -- engaged in mundane activities is a megahit this shopping season.

"Are they real?" one man asked incredulously, whipping his head around toward the window Tuesday as Helene Traasavik and Niki Huey sipped coffee and dabbled on their laptops while wearing lacy lingerie, short robes (open in the front) and slippers. "I came all the way from Queens to see it," said another man who gave his name only as Tin.

Whether the display will translate to a permanent boon for XOXO remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: It's drawing more attention than tiny reindeer and Santa's sleigh ever would.

Since "the show," as locals call it, opened Nov. 27, traffic to XOXO.com has increased 35%, said Erin Haggerty of the Kellwood Co. -- which designs, manufactures and markets goods that include XOXO's flirty, feminine fashions.

Some of the increase is due to Black Friday and Cyber Monday surges, Haggerty said. But some no doubt can be attributed to the buzz the advertisement has created in a city famous for its residents' ability to barrel down the sidewalks while ignoring the street theater around them.

At the corner of 38th Street and Fifth Avenue, nearly everyone stops to stare. Amused strangers debate everything from the appropriateness to the point of it all.

"We have to approach things in nontraditional ways," said Carol Powley, Kellwood's senior marketing director. "This is a look into the first apartment, if you will, of an XOXO girl."

There is a powder-blue sofa, a white shag rug, racks of clothes, shoes on the floor and pictures on the wall. There also is a full-length mirror in front of which Traasavik and Huey preen as they wriggle in and out of different outfits before fascinated onlookers. Those moments, however, are rare. The models spend most of their six hours in the window every day in lingerie, sipping coffee, chatting and checking e-mails on their laptops. Yes, they have WiFi in there. All that's missing to make it perfectly homey, it seems, is a cat. And curtains.

With more people than ever shopping online, the spectacle is a surefire way to grab consumers who otherwise might not notice store windows. And the fact that prime Manhattan space was available is a reflection of New York's struggling economy. The space on the buzzing corner used to be occupied by a CompUSA store, which closed.

This week, neither cold rain nor frigid winds stopped people from standing transfixed in front of the floor-to-ceiling windows once Traasavik and Huey sauntered into view at noon. Most of the lingering men would not give their full names, and they scattered like snowflakes in the wind when a TV crew turned its camera in their direction. But all of them had opinions.

"I wouldn't otherwise look at their website, so this was a way of getting my attention," said an electrician named Chris, adding that his wife might like the blue booties on one model's feet. "I wouldn't have noticed them on a mannequin, but on her legs I did. Maybe now I'll buy them."

Patrick Walsh Jr., who runs an animation studio in the neighborhood, stopped by with his colleagues Gary Stanton and Brendan Murphy to see what the fuss was about. "I passed by this like three times yesterday and didn't know what the product was," Murphy said. "It seems like they're selling underwear," Walsh said. "Or phone sex."

All agreed that the display was mild compared with what one might see in Amsterdam's red-light district -- and many female passers-by shared that view. "It's cute. It sure got my attention, but it would help if they put on more clothes so we knew what the items looked like," Dee Sealey said.

Nobody has formally complained, according to police spokesman Martin Speechley. The biggest problem seems to be the ruckus that ensues each time the models stand up, drop their robes and move toward the clothing rack -- a sign that it's time to shimmy into some clothes and then take them off again. Men press close to the windows. They wave. They hold up signs. One lifted his shirt and pressed his bare chest against the glass.

It's hopeless, though. Huey and Traasavik, both professional models, have no trouble ignoring what's going on outside. "We're kind of used to being stared at," Huey said good-naturedly as she and Traasavik sat on the sofa after slipping on stilettos and leg-baring outfits.

"It's so laid-back, it's almost like not working," Traasavik said. The hardest part might be lounging about while looking perfect. "Because we get dolled up all the time for work, we don't like to do that in our down time," she added.

The display will run through Sunday, and advertising guru Martin Lindstrom said that no matter what the short-term sales impact is, the buzz surrounding the campaign guaranteed long-term benefits for XOXO.

"Sex does not sell, but what sells is the controversy around it, and that's what is happening here," Lindstrom said. "XOXO has generated brand awareness." There's just one problem, he said: How to follow this up with an equally buzz-worthy campaign. Because "people will expect to be even more shocked next time."

In this Fox Business new clips, Martin discusses consumer behaviour when exposed to neuromarketing like smell, sound, larger shopping trolleys in the supermarket and so on. He gives examples on how and why different product sales go up or down when the retailers adjust the so called somatic markers. He explains also how consumers' feelings and emotions have a crucial impact on which decisions to take when they go shopping.

With today's shoppers looking for real value when they drop their dollars, designers are trying to keep quality high and costs low. Teri Agins reports.

Now that the fall styles are in, starring the season's sequined minidresses, streamlined peacoats, and those towering gladiators, scores of anxious shoppers scrutinizing the shiny new merchandise are wondering aloud, “Is this really worth $800?”

In the weeks following the great economic meltdown of 2008, there was a bonanza of unexpected bargains ripe for the picking: Racks of $1,000 designer frocks were consigned to liquidation for as much as 70 percent off well before Thanksgiving. Stuck with an excess of seasonal stock, shell-shocked retailers had no other choice, erasing most of their profits along the way. Bloodied but unbowed, fashion houses large and small pressed the reset button this year. For months, the trend that buyers have been buzzing about is value. The new proposition put everybody on guard and drove prices down by as much as 20 percent at labels like Dolce & Gabbana and Moschino. Designers also dreamed up sharply priced novelties to balance out their collections. For example, Jil Sander's Raf Simons turned out exquisite $1,300 dresses; at Givenchy, Riccardo Tisci added distinctive cotton blouses for as little as $440. Value now depends on conferring the truest bang for the buck.

Still, standouts like Lanvin's $2,800 black sleeveless belted sheath remain on the market alongside sublime $175 wool-silk-jersey tanks trimmed in python-embossed pigskin from 3.1 Phillip Lim. More than in the past, “luxury is about something that is special, that has a real authenticity. It isn't so mass produced,” says Julie Gilhart, fashion director at Barneys New York. It can also be found in “a beautiful handwoven scarf from Bolivia that sells for under $300,” she says. “We're moving into an era of transparency, when designers are being held more responsible for what they do.”

Long before the recession hit, prices of high fashion had spiraled out of control, fueled in recent years by the rising cost of imported fabrics and labor from Europe. But even when the good times rolled, overpriced fashion no longer made any sense. Amid a declining demand for clothes and accessories, the biggest challenge for fashion houses is to better justify why things cost what they do. The luxury industry, in particular, “needs to arm the consumer with the rational argument, as well as the emotional argument, why they need to buy that Louis Vuitton bag,” observes Martin Lindstrom, marketing expert and author of Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy. When it comes to fashion nowadays, he insists, “there has to be that practical dimension.”

Perhaps no designer lives by the rule of practicality more than Phillip Lim. The 36-year-old designer's mantra: original design, packed with fine details—hand-stitching, bound buttonholes, gazar inner facings—at sensible prices. (A head-turning feather-and-sequin cocktail dress retails for $950.) He and business partner Wen Zhou never set their sights on couture but on beautiful, affordable clothes. Their Manhattan garment-district workroom is a model of discipline and restraint. They know the techniques and shortcuts that can give a piece the right wow factor while keeping retail prices reasonable.

“The big secret here is that there is no waste,” Lim says. He hasn't fallen for the folly of fashion because he knows that overproduction and overexperimentation with samples “burns up all your margins.” He designs all women's, men's, and children's collections with only three assistants and no stylists; the fewer cooks in the kitchen, the more he keeps from being second-guessed.

“We produce only enough to cover the retail orders we get,” he says. On the front end, Lim painstakingly maps out the collections—a mix of half new and half repeat styles. Of the 240 pieces he created for fall 2009, he wound up manufacturing them all—a perfect batting average—which “is pretty much the way he does it every season,” says Zhou.

Amid declining demand, the biggest challenge for fashion houses is to better justify why things cost what they do

How can Lim estimate with such precision? “I am merchandising and designing the line at the same time,” he explains.

Lim appears to be from the same school as Lindstrom, who maintains that not only are the strongest consumer products fashionable, their many functions justify their worth. Case in point: a beautifully tailored $650 shadow-striped black wool blazer, which is actually two garments in one. Zip on its sequined lapels and it turns into a cocktail tuxedo jacket. Delightful extras like an inside breast pocket and underarm fabric dress shields are features you don't often find—even on $2,000 jackets. It comes as no surprise that retail buyers haven't been pressuring Lim to lower his prices. Instead, he says, “stores have been coming in and saying, ‘I can't believe that your prices aren't higher.’ So they are ordering more.”

Proenza Schouler opened its fall runway show with a color-block topper with billowy sleeves, “a fantastic piece that was only $1,200, ordinarily an opening price point for our coats,” says Shirley Cook, chief executive officer. “We were superconscious about adding pieces that were versatile, that people could wear during the day.” Already moving briskly since it arrived in stores in July: the “very best skinny stretch-twill pant you've ever seen—and it's $550.”

At the highest levels of the fashion pyramid, the world of small-scale production (by the dozens, not the thousands) and limited distribution, designers have no choice but to keep prices high, which is the only way these brands can deliver the best fabrics and the highest quality of craftsmanship. There will always be an affluent and discerning set unfazed by high prices, who prize top-tier exclusivity from the likes of Isabel Toledo, Azzedine Alaïa, and Lanvin. But even those designers are conscious of today's value mind-set.

Alber Elbaz has always had an enthusiastic audience for his day dresses, which can reach $4,000. But even he agrees that Lanvin has to “lower our prices.” Earlier this year he sprang into action, personally calling suppliers and factories seeking to shave costs. He also markets the 22 Faubourg label, which includes several pieces under $1,000.

Julie Macklowe, a hedge-fund-portfolio manager, attests that she has bought less this year and is “putting more thought into what I buy.” Yet she didn't balk at splurging on the red Oscar de la Renta evening dress she wore to the Met's Costume Institute Gala. “It was a must-have, the only one in my size, that I will have forever,” she says. “It was not an impulse purchase.” With loyal clients like Macklowe, the house of Oscar de la Renta is sanguine about its approach to the current retail climate. “We still have the $10,000 and $12,000 evening gowns, all the things that we've always done,” says Alex Bolen, chief executive. But the designer has expanded his resort collection to include lower-priced pieces that arrive in stores in December.

“We have sharpened our pencil when it comes to the cost of fabric and labor for details like embroidery, to come up with the best value,” Bolen says. “We have opening price points that are well under $2,000, when the competition is in the high $2,000s or around $3,000. We are using the same silk fabrics and detailing, but we are also expanding more into cottons and silk blends. This is the moment when we are putting as much on the hanger as we can.”

Thoughts for the week: ET couldn't resist the lure of product placement. And neither will you.

Daniel Finkelstein

Back at the beginning of the 1980s, the Mars Corporation made a big mistake. It was approached by the director Steven Spielberg, who said he was making a film, E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. Spielberg explained that there was a scene in the movie in which his hero, the young Elliott, discovers the creature hiding in the woods. He lures him out with sweets, laid in a trail leading to his house.

Would Mars like to pay for the sweets to be M&M's? Mars replied that, no, it wouldn't.

Hershey's gave a different reply. So when Elliott drops his sweets, it is Reese's Pieces that act as bait for ET. The result? Within a week of the film's opening, sales of Reese's Pieces tripled. And more than 800 cinemas across the United States began to stock the sweet for the first time.

Something similar happened to the sales of Ray-Ban sunglasses after Tom Cruise wore them in Top Gun.

This week, the Culture Secretary, Ben Bradshaw, announced a plan to allow product placement - the appearance of branded goods during programmes, for use, say, as props - on television. It is obvious why TV companies want this. But what about advertisers? Does product placement work? The ET story seems to wrap things up. Yes, of course it works. But Martin Lindstrom, who recounts the ET tale in his fascinating book Buyology, argues that it isn't as simple as that.

Lindstrom's interest, and the focus of his book, is what he calls neuromarketing. Not content with the traditional polling techniques - the survey, the focus group - neuromarketers want to look inside your head. Literally.

With the use of brain-scanning equipment, subjects have been tested, for instance, for their reaction to film trailers. A test of political reactions using campaign footage suggested the potency of fear as a determining factor in elections. The results persuaded the researchers that the technique could be used to design campaign ads.

Anyone concerned that politicians already use too much polling to guide their choices should note that the polling obsession might one day seem quaint.

So what does neuromarketing reveal about product placement? Using brain scans, Lindstrom tested reactions to the TV programme American Idol.

The programme featured three brands. The first was Coca-Cola. The show was saturated with the stuff. In front of each judge was a cup, the judges and contestants sat on chairs designed to look like Coke bottles, the contestants were filmed in a room painted Coke red, and so on.

Then there was Cingular Wireless (now AT&T), the only mobile phone carrier, as the host continually pointed out, that allowed viewers to text in their votes and whose logo was continually featured. The final sponsor, Ford, spent a fortune, but on traditional advertising spots specially designed for the programme (featuring its music, say, with contestants congregating around a Ford car).

The Lindstrom study attempted to discover whether the programme helped viewers to remember the logo of the featured companies more than those of the companies not featured.

The results were good news for Coke. Its product placement really seemed to work, planting the logo even more firmly in our brains. Cingular did well, too, but nowhere near as well as Coke. What about Ford? It wasted its money. Lindstrom notes that "in its post-programme test, we discovered that after viewing the shows, our subjects actually remembered less about the Ford commercials than they had before they entered the study". They were drowned out by Coke.

How do neuromarketers account for this? Well, first, it is clear that traditional advertising has difficulty making an impact. By the time you are a pensioner you will have seen something in the region of two million TV commercials. If you are an average viewer, you will be able to recall about three of them.

Product placement, by contrast, can work. But it needs to be done with conviction. Lindstrom's theory - but it is, in my view, just a theory - is that it is integration with the narrative that makes the crucial difference. Reese's Pieces were part of the plot of ET. Ray-Bans were a big part of Tom Cruise's cool image. And in American Idol Coke's brand was weaved into the show. That was why, even though mentions were not as explicit, it did better (or so the author of Buyology suggests) than Cingular.

When product placement comes to your TV set, you are going to notice it. Because if you don't, it won't work.

Left in the Flat-Screen Dust: Old-Model TVs Are So Toxic, You Can't Give 'Em Away. Literally.

Michael S. Rosenwald; Washington Post Staff Writer

This land is your land, this land is clunker land. From clunker cars to Jonathan Carroll's kitchen table, where a 20-inch Philips TV sits unplugged awaiting someone -- anyone -- to fire it up again before next week's season premiere of "Dancing With the Stars."

The TV works fine, Carroll says in a Craigslist ad. Only $40. Just a few years old. Perfect for a dorm room. Yet nobody has responded to the offer. "Not even the scammers," Carroll said. "They don't bother." Similar ads are piling up: "32" Panasonic TV 2000. Perfect working condition. Like New." And "19 inch tv - $19."

Alas, these televisions don't have much going for them. In technological terms, they use cathode-ray tubes -- CRTs. In layman's language, they are clunkers. Like Formica countertops displaced by granite, they no longer seem sleek. Like gas-guzzling autos surpassed by hybrids, they can no longer claim the cutting edge. They are fully functional dinosaurs in a high-def age. They just aren't, like Carroll's new TV, flat.

"It's amazing that nobody wants a perfectly good TV," Carroll said. "It even has a remote."

America's unquenchable craving, even in a recession, for the latest and greatest in electronics, and the nation's switch to digital television broadcasting in June, have combined to send consumers racing for flat-screen TVs -- and has made them anxious to rid their homes of their tube-based relics. Carroll and others worry that nobody will take their old TVs, not even for free, and local governments are scrambling to stop the rejects, laden with lead, from being dumped in landfills or poor Asian countries.

"Our society consumes a lot of electronics, whether it be computers, cellphones, TiVos, stereos or TVs, and these days, these things have a very limited life span," said Peter Karasik, who, as manager of Montgomery County's transfer station has a canary-in-the-coal-mine view of the country's electronics fashions.

In no segment of the electronics industry is the new supplanting the old faster than for boob tubes. Last year, 91 percent of the 37 million TVs sold in the United States had flat screens, according to the market research firm DisplaySearch. The number of tube TVs sold has fallen spectacularly, from 15.6 million in 2006 to 3.1 million last year. Asking a Best Buy salesman where the tube TVs are is a fail-safe way to induce giggles. The chain doesn't sell them anymore.

As new TVs enter the home, many people hide the old ones in basements, garages or closets. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 99 million TVs were stored this way two years ago. But many TVs are simply tossed. In 2007, 27 million units were discarded, and 77 percent of them were tossed out with the trash (most of the rest are recycled).

Responding to potential landfill contamination, 18 states, including Virginia and Maryland, require manufacturers to help pay for electronics recycling. Montgomery County's recycling program took in 122 tons of TVs in July, more than double the load in July of last year.

"Ever since the human being appeared, we've been hard-wired to hunt for better and bigger," said Martin Lindstrom, a marketing guru and author of "Buyology." "And that makes us think, 'I don't want to end up being the last person on planet Earth left with a CRT.' "

Carroll executed a succession plan in his District apartment: New flat screen is installed in living room, living room tube moves to the bedroom, the little Philips in the bedroom goes to Craigslist. Across the country, clunker pathways vary according to size of home and shape of family. Some TVs shift from bedrooms to basements to garages. Others migrate to college dorms. "It's the TV shuffle," Carroll said.

Things get trickier when the old TV is leaving the family entirely. Andrea Johnson and her fiance have found it difficult to get rid of her 20-inch Toshiba. She tried to sell it on Craigslist and got some responses, but then nobody showed to pick it up. Johnson, of Silver Spring, turned to hawking the TV through Facebook. That has generated a few bites from friends. "I actually feel better about doing it this way since I know it will go to a good home," she said.

Carroll offered his TV free on Craigslist and got some interest, but no solid taker. If nothing clicks for Carroll and Johnson, their options include the dump, which neither prefers, and Goodwill, which still accepts donations of TVs if they are digital-ready. Goodwill no longer takes models lacking a coaxial cable connection. And there is recycling. In Montgomery, where Johnson lives, the government pays e-Structors, an Elkridge company, 7.2 cents a pound to pick up clunker TVs and strip them for parts. The recession has driven commodity prices so low that the material inside the TV is worth less than the cost of recycling it.

Several electronics companies, including Toshiba, offer free take-back programs. Johnson could take her Toshiba to one of four recycling centers in Maryland. Carroll, with a Philips, isn't as fortunate. The company has no recycling program. Best Buy accepts clunker drop-offs at its stores, and its Geek Squad subsidiary will haul away an old TV when installing a new flat-screen.

Best Buy Geeks Brian Parsons and Denver Mowat arrived at Anton Garcia's home in Bowie this week to install a 46-inch Sony flat-screen and home theater system. "Here goes my back," Mowat predicted as he picked up Garcia's 30-inch clunker, the latest in a long series. Parsons replied: "You're 10 years younger than me. I don't want to hear it."

The Geeks removed the clunker without injury and plopped it on their truck to begin its journey to a recycling center. The Geeks returned a tad out of breath, set the 46-inch beauty on a stand and wired the room for surround sound.

Time to test the new gear: In went "Mission Impossible 3." They switched off the lights. There was Tom Cruise. There was the sweat on his face. Garcia and the Geeks watched. And kept watching. Finally, after it appeared nobody was going to peel his eyes off the screen, Garcia delivered the buzz kill: "Well, I don't want to keep you guys any longer."

Martin Lindstrom explains the technology used in scanning 2000 brains in the Buyology research project. He discusses how consumers are seduced by fear and why sex doesn’t sell anymore. Finally he discloses that subliminal marketing still works after being banned for years, and how this knowledge is used by many marketers including those in the tobacco industry.

We all know how kids are bombarded by marketing - but how does this translate into conscious recognition and decision making at the cash register? Watch this just released Today Morning Show series: Kids INC Todays Brand Savvy Tweens - as Martin Lindstrom works with a group of tweens to reveal their knowledge on brands - with some startling results.

This program first aired on 11th August 2009 at 7:43am EST

In this Part 2 of Kids Inc - Martin Lindstrom learn more about how the parents secretly observes the research and witness their reaction to their kids’ savvy-ness - and their shock at the reasons behind some of their brand choices. (If you’re looking for solutions you’ll like the ending!)

This program first aired on 12th August 2009 at 7:45am EST

Martin Lindstrom and John Tantillo debate why people in the USA are at a U-turn, going from bigger to smaller cars, from fast food to healthier food and from carelessness on climate changes to awareness on CO2 emission, windmills and solar energy. In all matters it is important to have political backup, no matter whether the question is financial support to the automobile industry or environmental sustainability. The two gurus also argue on the difference between Apple and Microsoft fans.

April 14 Domino Pizza witnessed a 10% drop of their share price in only one day - the reason why was a video released on You Tube - produced by two staff-members playing with the food. Watch this interview to learn about Lindstrom's advice to Dominos Pizza challenges.

ABC News NOW - and the segment: Dominos Pizza Disaster went on air May 5th 2009 at 10.30AM EST.

View the FOX Business interview with Martin Lindstrom on Fiat's recent acquisition of Ford and how the new brand alliance is to handle the re-introduction of Fiat in to the North American Market.

FOX Business went live May 5th 2009 with the segment Rebranding Ford at 9.30AM EST

You know the old saw about half our advertising being wasted but we don't know which half? Well, now we do, thanks to Martin Lindstrom, a Danish brand consultant and the author of the book Buyology, who took a brave leap into neuroscience to figure out why we buy — or don't. Using functional MRI and other brain-scanning techniques, he went beyond the flimflam of the Mad Men and measured the minds of more than 2,000 consumers, all observed under the influence of marketing.

What Lindstrom, 39, found was that many ads are not only ineffective but also have a sort of reverse effect. Huge health warnings on cigarette packs may actually encourage smokers to light up because they trigger a mental echo of the desirable product. Ford spent $26 million sponsoring American Idol, yet Lindstrom found that consumers came to think less of the company, mostly because its ads interrupted the show.

It was in 2003 that Lindstrom started reading about brain-imaging tools and realized they could be applied to marketing. He raised research money, brought scientists on board and helped recruit subjects. He's one of the first brand experts to understand the biology of consumer desire.

When you look past what people say and measure what their brains say, you realize the subconscious controls purchasing. Pepsi, for example, always won the Pepsi Challenge, but Coke won in the marketplace, because it's not about which tastes better but about which we think tastes better. That's an emotional reaction, not a rational (or even gustatory) one, and the brain scans reveal how it happens.

As a generation grows up online, the tools of persuasion will have to be as measurable as the medium. Google does it with clicks and links, and Lindstrom does it with neurons and blood flow. Somewhere between the eye and the mouse finger is the secret to selling.

Anderson is editor in chief of Wired and author of The Long Tail

Appeared in the TIME 100 edition of 2009 on stands Friday 30th of April 2009

Martin appeared on NBC's Today show to discuss the question everyone has been asking thorugh this recession: 'Are you actually getting more for your money, or are you being manipulated into thinking you are getting a better deal?'

Appeared on TODAY SHOW on March 3rd, 2009

The TODAY show teams up with Martin Lindstrom, chairman of the neuromarketing company Buyology Inc and author of the book Buyology, to go inside the brain of a shopper. Kelly is strapped up with an electrode cap and then sent off to buy. How she performs is astounding.

Appeared on TODAY SHOW on March 4th, 2009

The tough financial times have led retailers to try every trick in the book to get a sale. ABC teams up with Martin Lindstrom to tell you about the sneaky tricks luring you to buy more.

Martin discusses how marketers use subliminal advertising in a new way to bolster their brand recognition.

Read more about the Parade Magazine article mentioned in this clip by visiting our Archive Page

Appeared on TODAY on Thursday 8/1/09

What drives us as consumers to buy? What causes some marketing efforts to work... and some to fail. Martin Lindstrom, author of 'Buyology,' talks about how our unconscious mind influence what we buy, and how placing your brand out of context can cause a marketing effort to fail.

Does sex sell? What do religion and ritual have in common with successful advertising? Can subliminal advertising really influence our behavior? What effect, if any do health warnings on cigarette packs have on the consumer? Martin Lindstrom explains how most are lured to buy, even though they may not even know it. Lindstrom answers the question "Can subliminal advertising really influence our behaviour?". VIEW FROM THE BAY was broadcast live on Wednesday, November 12, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Why do we buy what we buy? Find out why some ads and jingles work and others don’t, and the role the subconscious plays in our marketing decisions.Leonard Lopate interviews Martin Lindstrom for the Leonard Lopate Show in New York. Aired the first time nation wide November 12th 2008 at 12.00 PM EST. Click the play button below to hear this interview. (If the media player does not show up below, click here to download and play the interview.)

Author Martin Lindstrom sits down with TODAY’s Meredith Vieira to talk about his new book, “Buyology: Truth and Lies About What We Buy,” which explains the scientific reasoning behind purchasing habits.

The most watched morning program in the U.S. goes live with the startling results revealed in Buyology. Watch Martin Lindstrom talk about some of the amazing discoveries from the world’s largest neuromarketing study discovering the truth and lies about why we buy.

THE TODAY SHOW was broadcast live from New York 8:37AM EST on October 20th 2008. Lindstrom will return to Weekend TODAY - this Saturday 25th October 2008 at 9.00AM EST.

Buyology is a page turner writes NEWSWEEK’s Lisa Miller.

Why do you choose Coke over Pepsi, Corona over Bud, Crest over Colgate? You don't think much about these choices, you say; your gut decides. Marketing guru Martin Lindstrom says otherwise.

Your preference for Macs over PCs is embedded in your brain circuitry. In "Buyology," he shares the results of a three-year, $7 million study, in which he submitted 2,000 people to fMRI scans to explore what, exactly, happens in your brain to make you stand in line all night for an iPhone.

The idea: People lie; brain images don't. To create successful brands, companies need to learn what people really want, not what they say they want.

The evidence: Lindstrom tested smokers, some of whom said they heeded the health warnings on cigarette packages. According to fMRI tests, the warnings did not dampen cravings; in fact, they stimulated them.

There's a religious aspect to these brain connections, too. The same areas of the brain "lit up" when people looked at religious symbols—the Virgin Mary, for example—as when they looked at strong brands, like the iPod. Weak brands generated less brain activity.

The conclusion: The most successful brands (Nike, Harley-Davidson) stimulate the brain's emotional centers in a positive way—a lot like religion. They create community, rituals and a common adversary. Coke Zero, says Lindstrom, succeeds because it poses as an enemy to its sugary sibling, Coke.

NEWSWEEK (U.S. edition) On stand October 27th 2008

Once upon a time, the advertising industry treated consumers as a bundle of personality traits (flirtatiousness, prudence, vanity) and products as a bundle of materials (distilled spirits, oils, dyes) put together by factories and laboratories. In short, consumers were people, and products were objects that advertisers tried to present to people in an attractive way. In the 1960s-vintage advertising world conjured up each week on TV's "Mad Men," the holy grail is to hit on slogans like "Bethlehem Steel is the backbone of America" or "Mark Your Man" for a lipstick campaign.

Today's world of marketing, however, reverses this arrangement. Marketers treat commodities as if they were people, with personality traits, and consumers as objects, with attributes that can be technically engineered. Nowhere is this trend more evident than in "neuromarketing," a burgeoning field that Martin Lindstrom explores with impressive clarity -- if undue complacency -- in "Buyology."

Marketers, using magnetic resonance imaging scanners, record brain activity in minute detail, measuring how the products they are selling affect the brain's pleasure centers. Daimler-Chrysler, to take one of Mr. Lindstrom's examples, showed pictures of cars to consumers while using MRIs to study the chemical changes in their brains.

Unexpectedly, when an image of a Mini Cooper passed before their eyes, a "back area of the brain that responds to faces came alive." Turns out it wasn't the Mini Cooper's "ultra rigid body" or "1.6L 16-valve alloy engine" that attracted consumers; it was its irresistible face. "You just wanted to pinch its little fat metallic cheeks," Mr. Lindstrom observes, "and drive away."

Or take another example. Some consumers who prefer Pepsi to Coke when they take a blind taste test, Mr. Lindstrom reports, prefer Coke to Pepsi when they know what they're drinking. A recent MRI test of 67 subjects explains why. Drinking Coke more significantly increases blood flow in the medial prefrontal cortex because its ad campaigns, over the years, have so effectively associated Coke with sensations of warmth, security and childhood innocence. Years ago, Revlon founder Charles Revson drily observed that "in the factory, we make perfume; in the store we sell hope." He was thinking, of course, of the romantic possibilities that Revlon's ads linked with its product. Neuromarketing can now pinpoint where in our brain such hope is triggered and tell a marketer which ad campaign will send the most blood there.

Of course, ad agencies have known for some time that commodities could be marketed as if they were people. By means of a clever campaign, a car or a beer or a chocolate bar can attach itself, in the mind of the consumer, to scenes of rugged adventure or romantic conquest. The buyer, by consuming the product, fills his need not only for a smooth ride or a mellow taste but, transiently, for the heady feeling of bold action or seductive prowess that was once available only through, well, actual experience.

But things have become more complicated. Engineers jostle to see how many needs can be met by a single commodity, such as an iPhone, and advertisers explore how many commodities can be marketed to satisfy a particular need, such as the need to feel like Michael Jordan, who in his prime endorsed everything from breakfast cereals to sports drinks. Neuromarketing takes the project a step further. By tracking brain response, it treats consumers themselves as objects: bundles of nerve centers that respond to different kinds of stimulus and form triggerable pathways as a result.

Mr. Lindstrom sees neuromarketing as a potential generator of vast consumer satisfaction. Aware, though, that the basic idea is unnerving -- there is a "brave new world" aura to such scientific manipulation -- he is keen to show how it sidesteps the ethical critiques that usually beset advertising.

In the old days, marketers were accused of "puffery": purveying falsehoods about the traits of the products they sold, as when Listerine claimed to prevent colds. But when neuromarketers attach personal traits to products, they are not falsely claiming that, say, a Mini Cooper actually is a "gleaming little person." What they are doing is adding a personality of warmth and fuzziness to the car, in the same way that the factory might add ventilated front disc brakes or cruise control. When you drive it, you will genuinely experience the sense of endearment that you might feel when surrounded by adorable children. Sure, it doesn't always work. But the intent is not to deceive.

Similarly, in the old days, marketers were chided for creating false consumer needs: e.g., encouraging the very status anxieties that products would supposedly allay. Think barbecues the size of SUVs. But neuromarketing gets at some kind of objective truth about consumers: about what really gives them pleasure. It makes its pitch directly to needs rooted in the brain's physiology, Mr. Lindstrom says, and so appeals to "our truest selves."

Let us grant that Mr. Lindstrom is right: that neuromarketing avoids portraying a commodity as the kind of object it really is not or encouraging an individual to be the kind of person he really is not. To borrow a couple of terms from the literary critic Lionel Trilling, neuromarketing does not participate in a culture of "insincerity." But it does seem to foster a culture of "inauthenticity": It disrupts identity itself by bypassing the conscious mind and targeting aspects of the self over which none of us has control. By coupling advertising's tendency to humanize commodities and commodify humans, it joins other forces working to erode the authentically human. It fits right in with disturbing contemporary trends, such as the tendency for Internet game-addicts to treat online avatars as more fully human than their own spouses or children. "Mad Men" is a lightly cynical prime-time soap opera. By contrast, "Neuro-Marketing Men," opening in the not-too-distant future at a theater near you, might just be a horror flick.

Mr. Stark is the author of "The Limits of Medicine" (Cambridge, 2006).

This edition of Wall Street Journal was published on 22nd October 2008

Marketing expert Martin Lindstrom says stores have special ways to get shopppers to spend. Kai Ryssdal gets him to reveal some of their methods.

Click the play button below to hear this interview. (If the media player does not show up below, click here to download and play the interview.)

T.J. Winick from ABC News questions Martin Lindstrom on subliminal advertising and the true power of sex in ads. Watch the latest interview with Martin Lindstrom live from New York on October 22nd 2008 at 4.06PM EST.

Buy•ology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy By Martin Lindstrom Doubleday; 240 pages

What do Rosary Beads and Red Bull have in common? A lot, it seems. Marketing guru Lindstrom and his team hooked up 65 people to special MRI machines to find out what their brains revealed about the connection between religion and brand loyalty.

For days, the researchers ran images - like those of the Pope and a bottle of Coca-Cola--by the wired subjects. The resulting brain scans were arresting. It turns out that there is virtually no difference between the way the brain reacts to religious icons or figures and powerful brands. Nike is a goddess, after all.

The experiment is quintessential Lindstrom. The author, who spends 300 days a year on the road, teaching major companies how to market their brands, has an original, inquisitive mind. His new book is a fascinating look at how consumers perceive logos, ads, commercials, brands and products. Lindstrom conducted a three-year, $7 million neuromarketing study (sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline and Bertelsmann, among others) that measured the brain activity of 2,000 volunteers from around the world. Some of the results confirmed marketing-industry hunches; others flew in the face of conventional wisdom.

A few findings from the well-traveled savant:

• Product placement on the TV or movie screen is generally useless (unless you are selling it). Viewers tune it out like white noise. It works only when the product is fundamental to the story line.

• Cigarette warning labels not only do not deter smoking but actually encourage smokers to light up. The reason? The nucleus accumbens, or the "craving spot" in the brain, is stimulated by the sight of the warning.

• Is subliminal advertising still used? You bet. There are even stores that play music containing concealed recorded messages prodding shoppers to buy more or not to shoplift.

• Contrary to popular belief, sex usually doesn't sell products. But controversies about sex in ads do (see Calvin Klein or Abercrombie & Fitch).

The author insists he doesn't study buyology, which he defines as "the multitude of subconscious forces that motivate us to buy," to help companies launch nefarious marketing schemes. Rather, he says, "my hope is that the huge majority will wield this same instrument for good: to better understand ourselves--our wants, our drives and our motivations--and use that knowledge for benevolent, and practical, purposes." Well, maybe. But then again, he has nothing to sell us.

TIME published 23rd October at 5.00 PM EST. Time on stand October 28th 2008.

Monday 10th November 2008 Lindstrom's Buyology hit two of the world’s leading best-seller lists: The New York Times Best-seller list as well as the Wall Street Journal Best-seller list.

As per November 10th 2008 Buyology ranked number 3 on the Wall Street Journal list and as per November 16th 2008 Buyology ranked number 11 on The New York Times list.

As per November 5th Buyology as well hit number 2 on Amazon.com - the worlds leading online book-seller. Buyology as well hit several other best-selling lists including USAToday’s best-selling list and Publishers Weekly’s best-seller list.

Picture a mad scientist in his laboratory, cackling with glee as he tries to unlock the secrets of the human mind. Now, consider the unsettling possibility that the scientist may be on to something.

Marketing expert Martin Lindstrom is that scientist, caught up in the excitement of research in his new book, Buyology. Lindstrom first became aware of neurological marketing research through a Forbes magazine article, "In Search of the Buy Button."

The article discussed a lab in England, where a neuroscientist teamed with a market researcher to scan the brainwaves of subjects watching commercials. Lindstrom was thrilled that unbiased access to the consumer brain was finally available.

A difficulty of standard marketing research, Lindstrom says, is that people will not — or cannot — provide accurate information about their mental states.

When asked why they prefer a brand of soft drink, or how a warning label affects them, most people cannot give a straight answer. This, Lindstrom says, is the great advantage of brain waves.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: United States | England | American Idol | Forbes | FedEx | Corona | Guinness | Reese | Casino Royale | Search | Pieces | fMRI | Martin Lindstrom | Magnetic Resonance Imaging

"They don't waver, hold back, equivocate, cave in to peer pressure, conceal their vanity, or say what they think the person across the table wants to hear. … Neuroimaging could uncover truths that a half-century of market research, focus groups and opinion polling couldn't come close to accomplishing."

Two technologies were used in Lindstrom's studies: SST (Steady State Topography) and fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging). In a series of tests spanning three years and more than 2,000 subjects, he concluded:

•Warning labels on cigarettes don't work. They stimulate activity in the part of a smoker's brain linked to cravings.

•Traditional advertisements no longer create lasting impressions. By age 66, most people with a TV will have seen nearly 2 million commercials. That makes it hard for an ad to increase a viewer's memory of a brand, despite the millions spent.

•Product placement only works when fully integrated. It works when Coke-bottle-shaped furniture is part of the set design on American Idol, for example, or when Reese's Pieces candy was used for bait in the movie E.T. However, when a product is not integrated, such as FedEx packages appearing in the background of Casino Royale, there is no measurable effect with regard to viewer recollection of brand.

•Sex sells itself. Viewers of sexually suggestive ads did pay attention, but more to the sex than the ad. In one study, fewer than 1-in-10 men who saw a sexually suggestive ad could recall the product, while twice as many remembered the product in non-sexually suggestive ads.

•Successful branding functions like religion. Simple rituals, such as putting a lime wedge in a Corona or slowly pouring a Guinness, give the brand added cachet. Brands attract zealous followers — "I'm a Mac; I'm a PC." Scans using fMRI technology showed that some viewers had the same neurological response to strong brands that they did to religious iconography.

•Subliminal advertising can be highly effective. When watching an advertisement, viewers automatically raise their guard against its message. With subliminal advertisements, viewers' guards are down, so their responses are more direct.

•Marketing isn't restricted to the visual. Many companies use smells to sell products. Fast-food restaurants and supermarket bakeries use artificial fresh-cooked food smells. Sounds also effect buying. A study showed shoppers purchased French or German wine depending on which nationality's music was playing on store speakers.

Lindstrom's research should be of interest to any company launching a new product or brand. "Eight out of 10 products launched in the United States are destined to fail," Lindstrom writes. "Roughly 21,000 new brands are introduced worldwide per year, yet history tells us that more than 90% of them are gone from the shelf a year later."

It's likely that the information in this book will be used in future marketing campaigns, so even if you aren't in the marketing business, it's a worthwhile read as a measure of self-awareness and self-defense.

USAToday on stand October 27th 2008 worldwide

Buyology is the latest in a clutch of titles examining “econo-science” that also includes the bestsellers Freakonomics, Blink and The Long Tail.

Like these, Lindstrom brings together a great many strands of research to build a fascinating case. The writing is snappy and the book’s a page turner.

BBC Focus Magazine. On Stand November 1st 2008.

Consumers are a difficult bunch. They say one thing but mean another. Asking consumers what they think of your new product or service or brand will not always elicit an honest response. As a result, of the 75,000 products that are launched each year, only 10 per cent will still be on the shelves the following year.

Business has always been about taking risks, but who would say no to improving the odds of their brand lasting more than a year? The problem is that focus groups – the usual method of shortening the odds – are flawed. There are often complex dynamics at work in these groups. Some people will try to dominate the conversation and some will be submissive. The product sitting on the table is just a sideshow. As a result, even big companies with massive marketing budgets sometimes get it wrong. Remember Maxwell House’s ready-to-drink coffee? Or Harley Davidson perfume? Me neither.

To figure out what consumers really like (and dislike), marketers need to see inside their minds – literally. With the advent of powerful brain-scanning technology, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), this is becoming possible. By measuring the flow of oxygenated haemoglobin in the brain, neuroscientists can pinpoint areas of brain activity to the nearest millimetre.

Marketers were keen to recruit this new medical tool to help them find out what consumers think. Never mind what consumers tell us they like, let’s see what they really like. The field that emerged was called neuromarketing. Given its Orwellian overtones, few companies admitted to using it as a marketing tool. But things might be about to change.

Danish-American marketing guru Martin Lindstrom has conducted the biggest neuromarketing study to date, involving 2,081 volunteers from America, England, Germany, Japan and China. He managed to convince eight multinational companies to stump up $7 million for his experiment. The results of this fascinating study can be found in Lindstrom’s latest book: Buy-ology: How everything we believe about why we buy is wrong.

Lindstrom had a number of questions he wanted answers to. Do cigarette warning labels work? Does product placement work? Is there a strong similarity between brands, rituals and religion? Does subliminal advertising work? Does sex in advertising work? The experiments provided answers to each of these questions.

Let’s look at subliminal advertising. The first purported case was in 1957. During a screening of the film Picnic, an American market researcher, James Vicary, projected the words ‘Drink Coca Cola’ and ‘Eat Popcorn’ on to the screen for a fraction of a second. The duration of the image was so infinitesimal it could only be picked up subconsciously. During the intermission, the sale of Coke and popcorn rocketed. It appeared that by appealing directly to the subconscious, marketers could change people’s behaviour. No sooner had the results of the experiment been announced, than there was an outcry about this sinister new form of advertising. Within a year, the American National Association of Broadcasters banned subliminal advertising. The British and Australian regulators followed suit. But a few years later, Vicary admitted that the whole thing had been a hoax. He had never conducted such an experiment.

However, genuine studies have shown that subliminal messages do have an impact on our subconscious. A Harvard University experiment, conducted in 1999, showed that simply flashing the words ‘wise, astute and accomplished’ on a computer screen (while playing a computer game) to one group of senior citizens, and the words senile, dependent and diseased to second group, affected the way the volunteers subsequently walked.

Lindstrom’s experiment concerned smoking. He wanted to know if subliminal images that are associated with certain cigarette brands (cowboy boots, deserts, sunsets) had the same influence on smokers as overt branding, such as Joe Camel and the Marlboro Man. The fMRI study showed that those viewing the overt cigarette imagery showed activity in an area of the brain, the nucleus accumbens, associated with reward, craving and addiction. What was surprising, though, was that the volunteers who only saw the images of cowboys on horseback, desert sunsets, and so on, showed more activity in the same brain region. In other words, the subliminal images created more craving for cigarettes than the overt images. Of course, with the ban on cigarette advertising, most tobacco companies now use this subtler, far more effective form of advertising. For example, Philip Morris, owners of the Marlboro brand, offer financial incentives to bar owners to fill their bars with furniture and fixtures that are redolent of Marlboro. Ever wondered why you had the sudden urge to light up after sitting on that red sofa, while a cowboy film played on the screen overhead? Now you know why.

Unsurprisingly, most people find the idea of marketers knowing our minds better than we do a bit creepy. However, tracing the oxygen flow in a person’s brain is not the same as reading their thoughts. Neuromarketing will never locate the ‘buy button’ in the brain, but it will shed insight into why some marketing techniques work and why some don’t. And Martin Lindstrom is the perfect guide to the new science of ‘buy-ology’. Be prepared to have your cherished beliefs overturned.

Appeared in SPECTATOR (UK) on Tuesday, 28th October 2008

New Book From Martin Lindstrom Explores How Subconscious Affects Buying Decisions.

In a bound-to-be-controversial book released today, ad-industry pundit Martin Lindstrom busts commonly held beliefs about marketing, asserting that subliminal advertising does exist and maintaining that cigarette warning labels make consumers want to smoke more, not less.

A major finding in Lindstrom's 'Buyology' is that consumers are driven by not only conscious motivations, but subconscious ones, too.

"Buyology: Truth and Lies About What We Buy," published by Doubleday, lays out the findings of a three-year, $7 million neuromarketing study by Mr. Lindstrom, who is chairman-CEO of Lindstrom Co. He and a team of researchers in Oxford, England, used the most up-to-date neurotechnologies -- functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) -- on 2,000 people from five countries in an effort to better understand consumer behavior. The goal was to gauge the efficacy of product health warnings, product placement and subliminal messaging, among other things.

Beyond rational choice

A major finding is that consumers are driven by not only conscious motivations, but subconscious ones, too. "The majority of the decisions we make every day are basically taking place in the part of the brain where we're not even aware of it," Mr. Lindstrom said. "I really wanted to find out what makes one brand appeal to us. You really can't ask that question to the conscious mind and depend on a verbal answer."

But you can depend on the brain, he said, maintaining that's why neuromarketing, or the study of how the brain responds to marketing stimuli, is here to stay.

Mr. Lindstrom said one of the most surprising findings of the study involved warning labels placed on cigarette packs. When project researchers asked test subjects if the warning labels worked, most said "yes." These were the subjects' conscious answers. But their subconscious answers told a different story. When researchers repeated the same question and flashed images of the labels while subjects underwent an fMRI, the images activated "craving spots" in the brain, indicating that the warnings made the smokers want to smoke more, not less.

In a different study, researchers found that anti-smoking ads had the same counterintuitive effect.

Counterintuive claims

"Buyology" also says that a brand's logo is not as important as many have held it to be; that consumers' sense of sound and smell are more powerful than their sense of sight; and that product placement doesn't always work. For example, when Mr. Lindstrom's researchers analyzed product placements in "American Idol," they found that Coca-Cola was far more effective at captivating consumers than Ford Motor Co., even though the corporations similarly paid more than $26 million on their campaigns.

The reason: The Coke label and colors were continually seen while Ford, which sponsored videos on the show, was less visible and less integrated into the action.

Mr. Lindstrom anticipates that his book will be greeted with mixed reviews. He realizes that people are scared about using neuromarketing, but remains convinced that it can be used in an ethical way. "Neuromarketing is like a hammer," he said. "It depends on whose hand you use and how you use it. You can use it to destroy or hang up a beautiful painting on the wall."

The Advertising Research Foundation declined to comment until it had time to review the book.

Published 21st October 2008.

For years marketers and experts have tried to figure out why we buy what we buy. They’ve spent billions on research, focus groups and advertising trying to find that special “button” of ours they could push to get us to part with our cash.

Now there is a fascinating new book that explains the actual science of why we buy things.

Martin Lindstrom’s book, “BUYOLOGY Truth and Lies About Why We Buy” shatters conventional wisdom and tells us why we really buy certain products or why we’re loyal to certain brands. Lindstrom partnered with researchers at Oxford University to launch the largest neuro-marketing study ever conducted to find out how our unconscious minds influence our buying decisions. At a cost of more than seven million dollars the team monitored more than 2,000 people from all over the world to see how their brains reacted to such things like product placements, subliminal messaging, brand logos, safety warnings and sexy or provocative packaging.

I wanted to know if Lindstrom could apply any of the findings to help explain what is going on right now in the investor’s mind.

Click here to view the CNBC interview with Martin Lindstrom.

First published October 20th 2008 at 4.10PM EST.

It's something that has been talked about for years, and now the author of a new book is trying to explain it: the idea that to many people, Apple is a religion.

In an interview with the creators of the film MacHeads, which itself examines the Apple branding and community phenomena, Buyology author Martin Lindstrom (see video below) talked about just how powerful that brand is.

"Apple is (as we've proven using neuroscience)...a religion," Lindstrom said in the interview. "Not only that--it is a religion based on its communities. Without its core communities, Apple would die--it is already facing strong pressure as the brand simply is becoming too broad (losing) its magic. What's holding it all together is the hundreds if not thousands of communities across the world spreading the passion and creating the myths."

To anyone who has followed Apple over the years, this is not too surprising. But it is interesting that an author like Lindstrom would be willing to codify this in some way.

It would likely be hard for some people, I would think, to be willing to articulate the link between religion and the Apple culture, but as the author points out, there are many similarities, especially when it comes to passion, commitment, and loyalty.

To be sure, there are other brands that have similar followings--but in consumer electronics those names are few and far between. And it often seems as though the Apple fans treat anything that comes out of CEO Steve Jobs' mouth as the true gospel.

I do wonder, of course, as have many others, whether this is a religion that can survive if its leader goes away. In other words, if and when Jobs is no longer at Apple's helm, can anyone step up and be the new prophet? Only time will tell.

This article was posted October 21st 2008 11:19AM.

Getting you to spend your money is among the biggest industries of our time.

Hundreds of billions of dollars each year on advertising and marketing to get you to buy the shiny brand, the new brand, the brand that will make you hot.

Marketing guru Martin Lindstrom has studied how we are sold to and how we respond. He embarked on a $7 million brain scan study to find how advertising effects our subconscious minds.

It led to a book called Buy-ology: How Everything We Believe About Why We Buy Is Wrong.

This interview was broadcast October 23rd 2008 at 8.00PM